DISCORD, DISCOMFORT AND POLITICAL HYPOCRISY

President Biden's recent change of heart about continuing the extension of the wall along the U.S./Mexican border raised a lot of eyebrows. During his presidential campaign three years ago, then candidate Joe Biden made it "perfectly clear" that during his administration not a single foot of wall would be built. A few weeks ago, he announced the release of funds to build up to 20 more miles of this controversial medieval barrier, claiming he had no choice but to release the money allocated during the Trump administration. When questioned about that decision, the president appeared openly uncomfortable. He confessed that he still believed that walls didn't work. Members of both political parties were quick to denounce his decision as hypocritical and politically expedient. However, social psychologists would refer to his reaction as a clear case of "cognitive dissonance," a mental conflict that occurs when beliefs don't reflect actions. The president displayed significant discomfort as he grappled with contradictory values, attitudes and perspectives about border control. As we move into next year's election cycle, many of us may experience similar uncomfortable episodes. Uncomfortable sensations which we will be motivated to reduce or explain away. To be clear, everyone experiences cognitive dissonance in their life. It happens when you hold two conflicting thoughts at the same time. You may crave hamburgers, even though you love cattle. You want to be healthy, but you don't exercise or eat a nutritious diet. You recognize that smoking or drinking too much is harmful to your health, but you do it anyway. You know you should drink eight glasses of water every day, but you drink coke instead, since it consists predominantly of water, and it tastes better. The link to politics seems obvious. We essentially have a two party system. Not every point of view is represented in isolation, like, for instance, in a proportional representation system used predominantly in Europe. Many of us will vote along straight party lines, holding our nose, not necessarily agreeing with everything contained in our party's platform or proclaimed by its candidate. We find ways to reduce our discomfort by yielding to social pressure, by trivializing the importance of discordant opinions, by denying responsibility or by other means that help us feel better about our decisions. A pertinent current example is the dissonance experienced by observers who are asked to state a position on Israel's response to the slaughter carried out by Hamas terrorists inside their country on October 7. Many will agree that Israel has a perfect right, or even a responsibility to go after the assassins with lethal force where ever they maintain their base of operations inside the Gaza Strip. However, most will also acknowledge that these militants reside among 2.3 million Palestinians, 52.3% of which are children under 18, who are wedged in tight living quarters with nowhere to hide or go. Hamas callously and openly employs this population as human shields. A military incursion will likely kill many of them. Anyone unconcerned by this prospect lacks compassion. We should all feel extremely uncomfortable contemplating the outcome of this festering conflict. While this may be an extreme example of a situation creating incompatible thoughts about outcomes in search of morally and politically acceptable solutions, the upcoming election year promises to be filled with discordant thoughts. Politicians tend to specialize in identifying what makes us feel uncomfortable, and suggesting dissonance reduction solutions that involve their personal records, opinions or prescriptions. American social psychologist Leon Festinger originated the theory of cognitive dissonance around the middle of the twentieth century. His work has been the focus of over 60 years of research, which can offer insights into the growing divide between what many politicians say and what they later say or do. Whether resultant discrepancies amount to political hypocrisy, expedience or situational change depends on our comfort level with the messenger. Theo Wierdsma